I think tolerance and education on facts about gay people and relevant gay culture is important at some point in school, but starting in kindergarten? Shouldn't schools be focusing more on reading and writing and math, not who invented the first buttplug (being facetious of course)?

I also think it reinforces mythical ideas about the "gay agenda" and could hinder progress in other states.

It's also flawed to present accomplishments in accordance with the gender or race or sexuality of individuals. None of these things play any factor in someone's talent or accomplishment.

mocktwinkie saidI think tolerance and education on facts about gay people and relevant gay culture is important at some point in school, but starting in kindergarten? Shouldn't schools be focusing more on reading and writing and math, not who invented the first buttplug (being facetious of course)?

I also think it reinforces mythical ideas about the "gay agenda" and could hinder progress in other states.

It's also flawed to present accomplishments in accordance with the gender or race or sexuality of individuals. None of these things play any factor in someone's talent or accomplishment.

Rethink your last statement. If Rosa Parks was a white male, would US students still be familiar with her historical accomplishments? Of course not. Race, gender, and sexual orientation DO play a role in someone's talent and/or historical accomplishment.

And why not introduce gay history in kindergarten? You act like homosexuality is something to be ashamed of or hidden from view of children?

From what I've read, the intention of this legislation was to make sure that historical contributions and situations that involve glbt people aren't OMITTED because of their sexuality. Or having their contributions listed while their sexuality, when relevant to the context being left out.

"OMGZ they're going to make kindergardeners get the gay on." is the tactic of those who would oppress gay people. AFA and NOM are already at it.

Ravco saidFrom what I've read, the intention of this legislation was to make sure that historical contributions and situations that involve glbt people aren't OMITTED because of their sexuality. Or having their contributions listed while their sexuality, when relevant to the context being left out.

"OMGZ they're going to make kindergardeners get the gay on." is the tactic of those who would oppress gay people. AFA and NOM are already at it.

It also is supposed to include important gay events and characters, such as Harvey Milk (who's sexuality is important) and the Stonewall Riots.

Its part of California history whether the self haters like it or not.

We arent going to be teaching children "This is how you take dick in the ass"

I do not see why "gay conservatives" would be upset about this, unless the subject matter being taught was particularly inappropriate to the audience (K-6 schoolchildren).

It is more of a matter of being age-appropriate with the content.

A special focus for younger grades would be to show positive examples of how LGBT integrate into society as well as any other minority has done, and to prevent any stigma against young LGBT persons from forming at an early age to increase acceptance and reduce bullying.

Teaching stuff about Harvey Milk and the Stonewall Riots would be appropriate to middle school and up.

Teaching that it is perfectly normal to have non-tradtional families (i.e. straight male+female parents) might be good for pre-K and K-6.

And of course, perhaps as important as any of that will be critical thinking skills, and math/science skills. Gay history should be a one of many facets of education, but not an overarching one.

mocktwinkie saidI think tolerance and education on facts about gay people and relevant gay culture is important at some point in school, but starting in kindergarten? Shouldn't schools be focusing more on reading and writing and math, not who invented the first buttplug (being facetious of course)?

I also think it reinforces mythical ideas about the "gay agenda" and could hinder progress in other states.

It's also flawed to present accomplishments in accordance with the gender or race or sexuality of individuals. None of these things play any factor in someone's talent or accomplishment.

Rethink your last statement. If Rosa Parks was a white male, would US students still be familiar with her historical accomplishments? Of course not. Race, gender, and sexual orientation DO play a role in someone's talent and/or historical accomplishment.

And why not introduce gay history in kindergarten? You act like homosexuality is something to be ashamed of or hidden from view of children?

You aren't getting it. The gender, sexuality or race of an individual does not define the them in terms of how intelligent or gifted they are in a particular area. Yes their gender or sexuality or race may play a role in how we remember them but we shouldn't be associating the talent of an individual with those factors because it really has nothing to do with it.

Your last comment is nonsense. I acted nothing of the sort. Discussions about love and sexuality and sexual function period shouldn't be talked about during kindergarten. Are you going to argue that it's okay to educate children on porn and drinking at that age too, because eventually they'll end up doing it anyway?

mocktwinkie saidYou aren't getting it. The gender, sexuality or race of an individual does not define the them in terms of how intelligent or gifted they are in a particular area. Yes their gender or sexuality or race may play a role in how we remember them but we shouldn't be associating the talent of an individual with those factors because it really has nothing to do with it.

This is wishful thinking. Are you really arguing that, say, a black woman in the 50's in Alabama had the same operating environment for her talents, her challenges, her struggles, her failures as a white male? In that case, those "factors" of race and gender absolutely had something to do with not only peoples' lives but their historical value and relevance. Based on the political and social environment people are in, their characteristics can have a huge impact on their lives - and history should present this context if it's to be something people can learn from. Do we have a ban on mentioning someone's height, their gender, their race? Of course not - we're painting a picture of someone, and who they love and want to marry is just another detail.

mocktwinkie saidYour last comment is nonsense. I acted nothing of the sort. Discussions about love and sexuality and sexual function period shouldn't be talked about during kindergarten. Are you going to argue that it's okay to educate children on porn and drinking at that age too, because eventually they'll end up doing it anyway?

So, discussing someone's sexual orientation = teaching sex. We all know how often in history class when we mention a male historical figure's wife, the conversation then extended into a discussion of how much he enjoyed rimming her and she liked reverse cowgirl.Sigh. Thank you for demonstrating exactly how the religious right discuss gay people, pretending that discussing the mere existence of anything other than a straight orientation is akin to teaching gay sex. It's a lie when they do it, and it's a lie when you do it. No one said that history class should discuss sexual function, and it's only the bigoted and uninformed who pretend that mentioning gays means teaching sex.

Now lies and propaganda are going to be rife, about Gay History. Will they paint our very dark past, and even now in Pink or Rainbows; just so it looks nice.

How will they depicted the gay plauge era?

I recall it was something like. How down under we look up to the poofs of San Francisco, as being progressive, and the queens of NEW York, to be shallow, and frivolous, a lot how we see the queens of Sydney.

But when HIV /AIDS hit the media and hysteria and death were all around us. The Leather Queens and such of SF refused to do a thing to help to prevent the spread of the AIDS virus, but ran around flapping their wrists demanding someone must do something, while refusing to do a thing like close the bathhouses a main source of infection, sighting they will not steep backwards in their sexual revolution; no they let people die instead; and these were not your fox news kind of guys either. The shame of it all. Where so many gays and bi's fled and abandoned the gay community, and did nothing but hide; just when we needed them most! Unlike now..........

Then you had the NY queens who we expected to act the way the leather queens and gays of SF, and we held our breath to see what they would do, and they become pro active in getting something done; we were like WOW.

Yes the American gay community was put on it's knees, during the Gay Plague Era. Will they tell the truth about this. Will they highlight how so many gay and bi men put their dicks before the health and welfare of another human? Sadly that still goes on. Saddly gay and bi men are still infected.

Not only did one live, and support the gay community during the gay Plague era, when so many fleed and did nothing. I also survived it to tell the story, when so many did not......

mocktwinkie saidI think tolerance and education on facts about gay people and relevant gay culture is important at some point in school, but starting in kindergarten? Shouldn't schools be focusing more on reading and writing and math, not who invented the first buttplug (being facetious of course)?

I also think it reinforces mythical ideas about the "gay agenda" and could hinder progress in other states.

It's also flawed to present accomplishments in accordance with the gender or race or sexuality of individuals. None of these things play any factor in someone's talent or accomplishment.

At what age would it be appropriate to tell kids that they shouldn't bully people because of race, presumed sexuality...etc.?

mocktwinkie saidI think tolerance and education on facts about gay people and relevant gay culture is important at some point in school, but starting in kindergarten? Shouldn't schools be focusing more on reading and writing and math, not who invented the first buttplug (being facetious of course)?

I also think it reinforces mythical ideas about the "gay agenda" and could hinder progress in other states.

It's also flawed to present accomplishments in accordance with the gender or race or sexuality of individuals. None of these things play any factor in someone's talent or accomplishment.

At what age would it be appropriate to tell kids that they shouldn't bully people because of race, presumed sexuality...etc.?

A lesson our liberal members at RJ also failed to learn at school, because they too bully homosexuals who don't vote the same as them; whats the diffrence?

@ Being Phoenix I would say as you as you possibly can! Kids notice differences in each other around six or seven. That's how old I was when my neighbor asked me why my parents weren't the same color?

My dad was Latino and my mom African American...being slightly confused responded by saying "they are the same color", he told me that his parents said that "my father could not be my real father because he was not colored". I went home in tears and told my mother and she was mortified by what this kid’s parent said. I was no longer allowed to play with him.

My point is his race was never an issue with me because I was taught we are all the same. Now if we can teach kids this very early on just maybe there will not have to deal with the stigma about race, gender and ones life style in their future.

catfish5 saidNo you're not getting it. Race, gender and sexual orientation DO play a role in history. Rosa Parks, Harvey Milk and Obama are clear cut examples.

And homosexuality is more than porn and buttplugs as you seem to equate it to in your previous posts.

Despite your lousy attempt to make your "point", I never said they don't play a role - so if you can't respond to what I actually said maybe you should just refrain altogether.

Someone is not a good piano player because they are gaySomeone is not good in math because they are gaySomeone is not a smart business executive because they are gaySomeone is not a great singer because they are gay

Do you get it now thickhead?

I won't dignify your last comment with more than pointing out that it was obvious I was only giving you an example of something that was worthy to teach an a seemingly more appropriate time. Everyone is going to disagree about when is an appropriate time for anything. I may say that 13 is an appropriate time to educate a child on what an abortion is, you may think 11 is appropriate. Throwing around labels like "self-hater" to anyone who doesn't agree with you is just childish.

Not that knowledge can't exist without experience, but forgive me for finding it ironic that someone who can't even stay in a committed monogamous relationship (and probably never will) is presuming to insinuate that I lack a deeper understanding beyond sex porn and buttplugs of what it means to be homosexual, fulfilled in a relationship and proud to be gay.

mocktwinkie saidI think tolerance and education on facts about gay people and relevant gay culture is important at some point in school, but starting in kindergarten? Shouldn't schools be focusing more on reading and writing and math, not who invented the first buttplug (being facetious of course)?

I also think it reinforces mythical ideas about the "gay agenda" and could hinder progress in other states.

It's also flawed to present accomplishments in accordance with the gender or race or sexuality of individuals. None of these things play any factor in someone's talent or accomplishment.

Rethink your last statement. If Rosa Parks was a white male, would US students still be familiar with her historical accomplishments? Of course not. Race, gender, and sexual orientation DO play a role in someone's talent and/or historical accomplishment.

And why not introduce gay history in kindergarten? You act like homosexuality is something to be ashamed of or hidden from view of children?

You aren't getting it. The gender, sexuality or race of an individual does not define the them in terms of how intelligent or gifted they are in a particular area. Yes their gender or sexuality or race may play a role in how we remember them but we shouldn't be associating the talent of an individual with those factors because it really has nothing to do with it.

Your last comment is nonsense. I acted nothing of the sort. Discussions about love and sexuality and sexual function period shouldn't be talked about during kindergarten. Are you going to argue that it's okay to educate children on porn and drinking at that age too, because eventually they'll end up doing it anyway?

As a teacher I can tell you that you that don't know what you're talking about. Discussions of gender and sexuality are introduced in kindergarten (and the moment they're born into this world). Ever open a children's book before? There are clear heterosexual undertones to most of them, not to mention gender stereotypes (notice how it's always the princess who needs saving by the big strong prince?) These ideas shape the way these kids see the world and what to expect. The moment things don't fit whatever schema that they've had to absorb then that's when you'll see conflict.

Discussions of love are already discussed during kindergarten--just not in the context of same-sex attraction. That's the point: to introduce the full spectrum--not a limited one--so that kids grow up knowing that there is nothing wrong with it.

Also, it's not wrong "to present accomplishments in accordance with the gender or race or sexuality of individuals". It's necessary to show how much we've accomplished as a community so that people recognize that there is more to us so that we don't perpetuate their stereotypes.

And you're completely wrong when you say that "none of these things play any factor in someone's talent or accomplishment" because they are. The fact that so many of us have had such difficult lives with so many barriers that we've had to overcome is a major accomplishment, especially when we're able to go beyond that and achieve something great.

Thank you for presenting a different perspective as a teacher. I guess we all remember different times when we had epiphanies growing up.

As far as my comment that talent should not be equated with sexuality or race or gender, I think you're falling into the same misunderstanding a couple others had. The orientation of Alexander the great did not make him a great warrior and conqueror, nor does mine have anything to do with how good I might be at particular things. Being gay does not make you a good teacher. Or would you like to disagree?

viitzAs a teacher I can tell you that you that don't know what you're talking about. Discussions of gender and sexuality are introduced in kindergarten (and the moment they're born into this world). Ever open a children's book before? There are clear heterosexual undertones to most of them, not to mention gender stereotypes (notice how it's always the princess who needs saving by the big strong prince?) These ideas shape the way these kids see the world and what to expect. The moment things don't fit whatever schema that they've had to absorb then that's when you'll see conflict.

Discussions of love are already discussed during kindergarten--just not in the context of same-sex attraction. That's the point: to introduce the full spectrum--not a limited one--so that kids grow up knowing that there is nothing wrong with it.

mocktwinkie saidI think tolerance and education on facts about gay people and relevant gay culture is important at some point in school, but starting in kindergarten? Shouldn't schools be focusing more on reading and writing and math, not who invented the first buttplug (being facetious of course)?

I also think it reinforces mythical ideas about the "gay agenda" and could hinder progress in other states.

It's also flawed to present accomplishments in accordance with the gender or race or sexuality of individuals. None of these things play any factor in someone's talent or accomplishment.

Rethink your last statement. If Rosa Parks was a white male, would US students still be familiar with her historical accomplishments? Of course not. Race, gender, and sexual orientation DO play a role in someone's talent and/or historical accomplishment.

And why not introduce gay history in kindergarten? You act like homosexuality is something to be ashamed of or hidden from view of children?

You aren't getting it. The gender, sexuality or race of an individual does not define the them in terms of how intelligent or gifted they are in a particular area. Yes their gender or sexuality or race may play a role in how we remember them but we shouldn't be associating the talent of an individual with those factors because it really has nothing to do with it.

Your last comment is nonsense. I acted nothing of the sort. Discussions about love and sexuality and sexual function period shouldn't be talked about during kindergarten. Are you going to argue that it's okay to educate children on porn and drinking at that age too, because eventually they'll end up doing it anyway?

As a teacher I can tell you that you that don't know what you're talking about. Discussions of gender and sexuality are introduced in kindergarten (and the moment they're born into this world). Ever open a children's book before? There are clear heterosexual undertones to most of them, not to mention gender stereotypes (notice how it's always the princess who needs saving by the big strong prince?) These ideas shape the way these kids see the world and what to expect. The moment things don't fit whatever schema that they've had to absorb then that's when you'll see conflict.

Discussions of love are already discussed during kindergarten--just not in the context of same-sex attraction. That's the point: to introduce the full spectrum--not a limited one--so that kids grow up knowing that there is nothing wrong with it.

Also, it's not wrong "to present accomplishments in accordance with the gender or race or sexuality of individuals". It's necessary to show how much we've accomplished as a community so that people recognize that there is more to us so that we don't perpetuate their stereotypes.

And you're completely wrong when you say that "none of these things play any factor in someone's talent or accomplishment" because they are. The fact that so many of us have had such difficult lives with so many barriers that we've had to overcome is a major accomplishment, especially when we're able to go beyond that and achieve something great.

Thank you for presenting a different perspective as a teacher. I guess we all remember different times when we had epiphanies growing up.

As far as my comment that talent should not be equated with sexuality or race or gender, I think you're falling into the same misunderstanding a couple others had. The orientation of Alexander the great did not make him a great warrior and conqueror, nor does mine have anything to do with how good I might be at particular things. Being gay does not make you a good teacher. Or would you like to disagree?

I do disagree. Being gay makes me a better teacher because I'm capable of understanding the world in a way a heterosexual possibly never will, and thus able to communicate that much more depth in my lessons. It's a basic concept in feminism. Those who are oppressed will always see more clearly than the guy at the top who takes everything for granted.

I guess it's hard to argue with omniscience!

I suppose being a gay teacher would even make your perspective "better" than a disabled teacher who is straight because they will never know what you have had to go through!

catfish5 saidNo you're not getting it. Race, gender and sexual orientation DO play a role in history. Rosa Parks, Harvey Milk and Obama are clear cut examples.

And homosexuality is more than porn and buttplugs as you seem to equate it to in your previous posts.

Despite your lousy attempt to make your "point", I never said they don't play a role - so if you can't respond to what I actually said maybe you should just refrain altogether.

Someone is not a good piano player because they are gaySomeone is not good in math because they are gaySomeone is not a smart business executive because they are gaySomeone is not a great singer because they are gay

Do you get it now thickhead?

I won't dignify your last comment with more than pointing out that it was obvious I was only giving you an example of something that was worthy to teach an a seemingly more appropriate time. Everyone is going to disagree about when is an appropriate time for anything. I may say that 13 is an appropriate time to educate a child on what an abortion is, you may think 11 is appropriate. Throwing around labels like "self-hater" to anyone who doesn't agree with you is just childish.

Not that knowledge can't exist without experience, but forgive me for finding it ironic that someone who can't even stay in a committed monogamous relationship (and probably never will) is presuming to insinuate that I lack a deeper understanding beyond sex porn and buttplugs of what it means to be homosexual, fulfilled in a relationship and proud to be gay.

You've made it clear in previous posts that homosexuality doesn't define you. However, from my observations, it is perfectly clear that you are 100% defined by your own perceived inadequacies as a homosexual male.

Grow a pair and accept the fact that you are gay. Being gay doesn't mean you are any less of a man. However, you've let the religious right emasculate you and made you believe that you have to conform to traditional conservative christian opinions, views, and lifestyle choices to gain any acceptance in this world.

I, for one, reject this notion. I own my homosexuality as a badge of honor and make no apologies for my behaviors and lifestyle choices as a gay male. Unlike you, I am not a second class citizen to heterosexuals no matter how i live my life (monogamous or not). In this regard, I have lost all respect for you.

mocktwinkie saidI think tolerance and education on facts about gay people and relevant gay culture is important at some point in school, but starting in kindergarten? Shouldn't schools be focusing more on reading and writing and math, not who invented the first buttplug (being facetious of course)?

I also think it reinforces mythical ideas about the "gay agenda" and could hinder progress in other states.

It's also flawed to present accomplishments in accordance with the gender or race or sexuality of individuals. None of these things play any factor in someone's talent or accomplishment.

Rethink your last statement. If Rosa Parks was a white male, would US students still be familiar with her historical accomplishments? Of course not. Race, gender, and sexual orientation DO play a role in someone's talent and/or historical accomplishment.

And why not introduce gay history in kindergarten? You act like homosexuality is something to be ashamed of or hidden from view of children?

You aren't getting it. The gender, sexuality or race of an individual does not define the them in terms of how intelligent or gifted they are in a particular area. Yes their gender or sexuality or race may play a role in how we remember them but we shouldn't be associating the talent of an individual with those factors because it really has nothing to do with it.

Your last comment is nonsense. I acted nothing of the sort. Discussions about love and sexuality and sexual function period shouldn't be talked about during kindergarten. Are you going to argue that it's okay to educate children on porn and drinking at that age too, because eventually they'll end up doing it anyway?

As a teacher I can tell you that you that don't know what you're talking about. Discussions of gender and sexuality are introduced in kindergarten (and the moment they're born into this world). Ever open a children's book before? There are clear heterosexual undertones to most of them, not to mention gender stereotypes (notice how it's always the princess who needs saving by the big strong prince?) These ideas shape the way these kids see the world and what to expect. The moment things don't fit whatever schema that they've had to absorb then that's when you'll see conflict.

Discussions of love are already discussed during kindergarten--just not in the context of same-sex attraction. That's the point: to introduce the full spectrum--not a limited one--so that kids grow up knowing that there is nothing wrong with it.

Also, it's not wrong "to present accomplishments in accordance with the gender or race or sexuality of individuals". It's necessary to show how much we've accomplished as a community so that people recognize that there is more to us so that we don't perpetuate their stereotypes.

And you're completely wrong when you say that "none of these things play any factor in someone's talent or accomplishment" because they are. The fact that so many of us have had such difficult lives with so many barriers that we've had to overcome is a major accomplishment, especially when we're able to go beyond that and achieve something great.

Thank you for presenting a different perspective as a teacher. I guess we all remember different times when we had epiphanies growing up.

As far as my comment that talent should not be equated with sexuality or race or gender, I think you're falling into the same misunderstanding a couple others had. The orientation of Alexander the great did not make him a great warrior and conqueror, nor does mine have anything to do with how good I might be at particular things. Being gay does not make you a good teacher. Or would you like to disagree?

I do disagree. Being gay makes me a better teacher because I'm capable of understanding the world in a way a heterosexual possibly never will, and thus able to communicate that much more depth in my lessons. It's a basic concept in feminism. Those who are oppressed will always see more clearly than the guy at the top who takes everything for granted.

Twinkie doesn't seem to understand that who you are can greatly impact what your experience of life is.Being gay (or a member of some other minority group) impacts your life experience greatly - in the same way that being born rich or poor or being born beautiful or ugly impacts your life greatly.Being gay is a factor in people's lives and there should be no shame in mentioning it.

catfish5 saidNo you're not getting it. Race, gender and sexual orientation DO play a role in history. Rosa Parks, Harvey Milk and Obama are clear cut examples.

And homosexuality is more than porn and buttplugs as you seem to equate it to in your previous posts.

Despite your lousy attempt to make your "point", I never said they don't play a role - so if you can't respond to what I actually said maybe you should just refrain altogether.

Someone is not a good piano player because they are gaySomeone is not good in math because they are gaySomeone is not a smart business executive because they are gaySomeone is not a great singer because they are gay

Do you get it now thickhead?

I won't dignify your last comment with more than pointing out that it was obvious I was only giving you an example of something that was worthy to teach an a seemingly more appropriate time. Everyone is going to disagree about when is an appropriate time for anything. I may say that 13 is an appropriate time to educate a child on what an abortion is, you may think 11 is appropriate. Throwing around labels like "self-hater" to anyone who doesn't agree with you is just childish.

Not that knowledge can't exist without experience, but forgive me for finding it ironic that someone who can't even stay in a committed monogamous relationship (and probably never will) is presuming to insinuate that I lack a deeper understanding beyond sex porn and buttplugs of what it means to be homosexual, fulfilled in a relationship and proud to be gay.

You've made it clear in previous posts that homosexuality doesn't define you. However, from my observations, it is perfectly clear that you are 100% defined by your own perceived inadequacies as a homosexual male.

Grow a pair and accept the fact that you are gay. Being gay doesn't mean you are any less of a man. However, you've let the religious right emasculate you and made you believe that you have to conform to traditional conservative christian opinions, views, and lifestyle choices to gain any acceptance in this world.

I, for one, reject this notion. I own my homosexuality as a badge of honor and make no apologies for my behaviors and lifestyle choices as a gay male. Unlike you, I am not a second class citizen to heterosexuals no matter how i live my life (monogamous or not). In this regard, I have lost all respect for you.

I wish I could say the same thing but saying something is lost would imply that it was there to begin.

mocktwinkie saidI think tolerance and education on facts about gay people and relevant gay culture is important at some point in school, but starting in kindergarten? Shouldn't schools be focusing more on reading and writing and math, not who invented the first buttplug (being facetious of course)?

I also think it reinforces mythical ideas about the "gay agenda" and could hinder progress in other states.

It's also flawed to present accomplishments in accordance with the gender or race or sexuality of individuals. None of these things play any factor in someone's talent or accomplishment.

Rethink your last statement. If Rosa Parks was a white male, would US students still be familiar with her historical accomplishments? Of course not. Race, gender, and sexual orientation DO play a role in someone's talent and/or historical accomplishment.

And why not introduce gay history in kindergarten? You act like homosexuality is something to be ashamed of or hidden from view of children?

You aren't getting it. The gender, sexuality or race of an individual does not define the them in terms of how intelligent or gifted they are in a particular area. Yes their gender or sexuality or race may play a role in how we remember them but we shouldn't be associating the talent of an individual with those factors because it really has nothing to do with it.

Your last comment is nonsense. I acted nothing of the sort. Discussions about love and sexuality and sexual function period shouldn't be talked about during kindergarten. Are you going to argue that it's okay to educate children on porn and drinking at that age too, because eventually they'll end up doing it anyway?

As a teacher I can tell you that you that don't know what you're talking about. Discussions of gender and sexuality are introduced in kindergarten (and the moment they're born into this world). Ever open a children's book before? There are clear heterosexual undertones to most of them, not to mention gender stereotypes (notice how it's always the princess who needs saving by the big strong prince?) These ideas shape the way these kids see the world and what to expect. The moment things don't fit whatever schema that they've had to absorb then that's when you'll see conflict.

Discussions of love are already discussed during kindergarten--just not in the context of same-sex attraction. That's the point: to introduce the full spectrum--not a limited one--so that kids grow up knowing that there is nothing wrong with it.

Also, it's not wrong "to present accomplishments in accordance with the gender or race or sexuality of individuals". It's necessary to show how much we've accomplished as a community so that people recognize that there is more to us so that we don't perpetuate their stereotypes.

And you're completely wrong when you say that "none of these things play any factor in someone's talent or accomplishment" because they are. The fact that so many of us have had such difficult lives with so many barriers that we've had to overcome is a major accomplishment, especially when we're able to go beyond that and achieve something great.

Thank you for presenting a different perspective as a teacher. I guess we all remember different times when we had epiphanies growing up.

As far as my comment that talent should not be equated with sexuality or race or gender, I think you're falling into the same misunderstanding a couple others had. The orientation of Alexander the great did not make him a great warrior and conqueror, nor does mine have anything to do with how good I might be at particular things. Being gay does not make you a good teacher. Or would you like to disagree?

I do disagree. Being gay makes me a better teacher because I'm capable of understanding the world in a way a heterosexual possibly never will, and thus able to communicate that much more depth in my lessons. It's a basic concept in feminism. Those who are oppressed will always see more clearly than the guy at the top who takes everything for granted.

I guess it's hard to argue with omnipotence!

I suppose being a gay teacher would even make your perspective "better" than a disabled teacher who is straight because they will never know what you have had to go through!

You just proved my point. Do we teach native american history? Women's history? Black history? You will never truly understand the world through their eyes unless you experience it. I'm not saying I'm omnipotent at all, but thanks for the stab. But based on my experience, people will never give something a second thought if it doesn't affect them.

Being gay isn't the know all. I see discrimination within the gay community itself--again repeating the cycle of picking on people "lower" on the social scale. Ever get hated on for being effeminate? Transgendered? Based on your race?

The point is, the further down the social scale you are, the more you are forced to think about your role in the world around you.

Obviously your mind is too narrow to comprehend that.

So you ARE a "better" teacher than someone who is disabled and straight, or you don't know? Just answer the question.

Here are some more you can answer:

Does being gay make someone a better driver? Does it make someone a better cook? Does it make them a better son? A better daughter?

mocktwinkie saidI think tolerance and education on facts about gay people and relevant gay culture is important at some point in school, but starting in kindergarten? Shouldn't schools be focusing more on reading and writing and math, not who invented the first buttplug (being facetious of course)?

I also think it reinforces mythical ideas about the "gay agenda" and could hinder progress in other states.

It's also flawed to present accomplishments in accordance with the gender or race or sexuality of individuals. None of these things play any factor in someone's talent or accomplishment.

Rethink your last statement. If Rosa Parks was a white male, would US students still be familiar with her historical accomplishments? Of course not. Race, gender, and sexual orientation DO play a role in someone's talent and/or historical accomplishment.

And why not introduce gay history in kindergarten? You act like homosexuality is something to be ashamed of or hidden from view of children?

You aren't getting it. The gender, sexuality or race of an individual does not define the them in terms of how intelligent or gifted they are in a particular area. Yes their gender or sexuality or race may play a role in how we remember them but we shouldn't be associating the talent of an individual with those factors because it really has nothing to do with it.

Your last comment is nonsense. I acted nothing of the sort. Discussions about love and sexuality and sexual function period shouldn't be talked about during kindergarten. Are you going to argue that it's okay to educate children on porn and drinking at that age too, because eventually they'll end up doing it anyway?

As a teacher I can tell you that you that don't know what you're talking about. Discussions of gender and sexuality are introduced in kindergarten (and the moment they're born into this world). Ever open a children's book before? There are clear heterosexual undertones to most of them, not to mention gender stereotypes (notice how it's always the princess who needs saving by the big strong prince?) These ideas shape the way these kids see the world and what to expect. The moment things don't fit whatever schema that they've had to absorb then that's when you'll see conflict.

Discussions of love are already discussed during kindergarten--just not in the context of same-sex attraction. That's the point: to introduce the full spectrum--not a limited one--so that kids grow up knowing that there is nothing wrong with it.

Also, it's not wrong "to present accomplishments in accordance with the gender or race or sexuality of individuals". It's necessary to show how much we've accomplished as a community so that people recognize that there is more to us so that we don't perpetuate their stereotypes.

And you're completely wrong when you say that "none of these things play any factor in someone's talent or accomplishment" because they are. The fact that so many of us have had such difficult lives with so many barriers that we've had to overcome is a major accomplishment, especially when we're able to go beyond that and achieve something great.

Thank you for presenting a different perspective as a teacher. I guess we all remember different times when we had epiphanies growing up.

As far as my comment that talent should not be equated with sexuality or race or gender, I think you're falling into the same misunderstanding a couple others had. The orientation of Alexander the great did not make him a great warrior and conqueror, nor does mine have anything to do with how good I might be at particular things. Being gay does not make you a good teacher. Or would you like to disagree?

I do disagree. Being gay makes me a better teacher because I'm capable of understanding the world in a way a heterosexual possibly never will, and thus able to communicate that much more depth in my lessons. It's a basic concept in feminism. Those who are oppressed will always see more clearly than the guy at the top who takes everything for granted.

I guess it's hard to argue with omnipotence!

I suppose being a gay teacher would even make your perspective "better" than a disabled teacher who is straight because they will never know what you have had to go through!

You just proved my point. Do we teach native american history? Women's history? Black history? You will never truly understand the world through their eyes unless you experience it. I'm not saying I'm omnipotent at all, but thanks for the stab. But based on my experience, people will never give something a second thought if it doesn't affect them.

Being gay isn't the know all. I see discrimination within the gay community itself--again repeating the cycle of picking on people "lower" on the social scale. Ever get hated on for being effeminate? Transgendered? Based on your race?

The point is, the further down the social scale you are, the more you are forced to think about your role in the world around you.

Obviously your mind is too narrow to comprehend that.

It's not just that twinkie's mind is too narrow - it's his life experiences that are too narrow too.He's a spoiled boy who's never experienced how difficult life can be, and who therefore has no compassion for anyone else who has experienced or is experiencing difficulties in life.